This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches
from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.

Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of
stock in 2012, I've been following the trail of its stock price.

In 2012, I wrote:

"But now the Facebook
stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at
half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO,
venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their
shares, and some did, at a loss."

"Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg's
ability to manage his company. ‘Experts' are saying he should
import a professional team to run the business side of things
and step away."

"This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play…

First, [insiders]
drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low
levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell
their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders
quietly buy up as much of it as they can.

Finally, when the
price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the
way to new highs and win big."

In 2013, I followed up
and wrote:

"Facebook launched
its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price
was 42 dollars a share."

"In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55."

"On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the
stock reached an all-time high: 52.21."

"So… Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company
that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on
themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes
through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like
ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices,
scaring lots of investors."

"They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at
delicious discounts."

"Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to
move the price. Up. The long climb begins."

Now, in June of 2017,
it's time to check in again.

What's happened to
Facebook's stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?

From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that
convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks - and of course,
insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves.

The shakeout took the
stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to
$115.05.

Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this
year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.

All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…
and now $150.

Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook's
long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?

I ask that question because of Facebook's CIA connections:

The big infusion of
cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college
enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to
Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the
board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA).
The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer.

Gilman Louie happened
to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of
funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would
use to "gather data."

That's not the only
connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA's
man, Gilman Louie.

In 2004, Louie went to
work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones
also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was
an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon's technology department that
helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it's no surprise that Jim Breyer's
jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular
mythology ofMark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it.

Who can fail to realize
that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its
tracking capability, is an ideal
CIA
asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer
camp for "exceptional children," CTY (Center for Talented Youth),
run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students,
Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have
been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and
brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later
progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the
park for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at
Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining
possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel.

Through their cutouts, as
described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an
anti-Trump
stance, which meant a pro-Hillary
stance.

Is that a pro-CIA stance?

Let's look at a
fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other
Clinton:

According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was
involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas - and
I'm not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the
Mena airport (see The Mena operation).

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in
his home state, under the radar.

But because Arkansas,
when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and
his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill
was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to
dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA
handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons
operation, because Bill had screwed up royally.

A screaming match ensued
- but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill,

HE WAS STILL THEIR
MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, there are
people who think Reed and Cumming's book contains fiction, but John
Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday.

He co-authored the 1990
book,
Goombata, about the rise and fall
of John Gotti.

He exposed US operations
to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It's highly doubtful
he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep
conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary
meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in
March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the
Presidency.

Author Terry Reed,
himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North,
and a man named "Robert Johnson," who was representing CIA
head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

"Calm down and
listen… We are all in this together. We all have our personal
agendas… but let's not forget, both the Vice President and Mr.
Casey want this operation to be a success.

We need to get these
assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and
prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a
golden opportunity. The timing is right.

We have communists
taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull
together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

"I'm not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have
been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and
unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a
falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the
cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation.

That put the police
in a position where we could control them.

We fed them what we
wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our
restaurant and our menu… now we have to shut it down…

"Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy. But you do have
competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in
one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset.

The beauty of this,
as you know, is that you're a Democrat, and with our ability to
influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan
gridlock.

Mr. Casey wanted me
to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something
stupid, you're No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job
you've always wanted.

"That's pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don't you help us keep
a lid on this and we'll all be promoted together. You and guys
like us are the fathers of the new government.

Hell, we are the new
covenant."

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA's boy
back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992
Presidential campaign. That speaks of major planning.

In 1992, an obscure
governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national
prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the
White House.

Did Facebook's
strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and
instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the
continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep
the Clintons in power?

Since 1986, have
the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?

Was the most
recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put
Hillary in the White House?

Most people have a
problem looking at long-term ops.

They conceive of covert
actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That's
exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark
for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they're in the
clear.

And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an
infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the
possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and
accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and
support their favored presidential candidate - all during the same
dozen years.